Dear Editor:
Donald Trump wrote in his new book “How To Get Rich” that he was displeased or, to be more specific, intensely discomforted with former New York Governor Mario Cuomo because of what Trump believes to be Cuomo’s disloyalty.
It seems that Donald, a large campaign contributor to Mario during his years as Governor, without seeking remuneration in any way, asked for a perfectly appropriate and legal favor in later years and was met with a rejection by the ex-Governor.
The favor involved bringing attention to a detail at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, directed by former Governor Cuomo’s son, Secretary Andrew Cuomo. When the ex-Governor replied that he rarely calls the Secretary on business matters, Trump became offended because this was the kind of favor that takes place between fiends in the private and public sectors all the time.
The aforementioned incident appears to be an illustration of misperception and misinterpretation at its utmost. First, we see a person who willingly made considerable campaign contributions without seeking a consideration of any kind during a politician’s tenure in office, now asking for a favor at a late date. And secondly, the person then proceeds to desire a close relative of the Secretary of HUD to intercede on his behalf for the attaining of an appropriate and legal favor.
However, to expect a favor from a present or former office holder, even within the purview of appropriateness and legality, places a questionable nature on the entire practice of large campaign contribution. In addition, to regard former Governor Cuomo’s refusal to contact his son, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, on this matter as an act of disloyalty seems to completely miss the point. If anything, Mario Cuomo should be, indeed, commended for remaining steadfast to the principle of refraining from any suggestion of preferential treatment, no matter how legitimate the request may be.
Even accepting that Donald Trump sincerely believed that he was acting within a realm of rectitude, his action renders him subject to more than one interpretation.
Howard Lawson